happening now, breaking news. lying to prosecutors. a federal judge could rule at any moment on whether paul manafort lied in violation of his plea deal as the special counsel claims. what will it mean for the former trump campaign chairman? and for the collusion investigation. overseeing mueller. we're getting exclusive information about how the president's pick for attorney general is preparing for his confirmation and his role in the conclusion of the russia investigation. looking for land mines. that's what president trump says he is doing as he refuses to commit to a deal to avoid a government shutdown. will he blow up the agreement or will he sign it? long gone. the head of fema calls it quits, joining the swelling ranks of follower trump administration officials. why is brock long leaving now

months after a controversy over his travel? we want to welcome our viewers in the united states 5and aroun the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you are in "the situation room." >> this is cnn breakinging breas in the russia investigation. we're standing by for a ruling in the special counsel's case against paul manafort. a federal judge set to decide if manafort lied to investigators in violation of his plea agreement. robert mueller's office says one of the lies involved a meeting with a russian that's at the heart of the collusion investigation. this as we're learning the man on track to be the next attorney general is already having discussions about how to handle mueller's final report, including if and how it is released. william barr is expected to be confirmed and oversee the russia

appropriate this week. i will get reaction from a congressman. our correspondents and analysts are standing by. first, let's go to jessica schneider. rea >> reporter: it's in the hands of a judge. she has gone to great lengths to listen to evidence from pr prosecutors. m manafort's attorneys say he didn't intentionally do this. at the heart of this is a meeting where paul manafort seemed to sneak away from trump campaign headquarters to a secret meeting with a pman who has tied to russian intelligence. tonight, a federal judge is weighing whether former trump campaign chairman paul manafort lied to special counsel robert mueller's prosecutors during plea talks. if the judge decides manafort

lied, it could impact manafort's march sentencing with the judge possibly imposing a stiffer sentence. the question surrounding paul manafort and any possible russian collusion remained. special counsel he investigator believe details about the meeting could prove pivotal. in a closed hearing last week, a prosecutor revealed the dinner meeting was very much to the heart of what the special counsel's office is investigating. on august 2, 2016, just weeks after the republican national convention, manafort met up with his russian business associate just blocks from trump's campaign headquarters, inside the private room in midtown. the fbi has alleged the russian had connection to russian intelligence and those ties continued into 2016. the meeting happened on the heels of russia's boldest election meddling maneuver, stealing thousands of e-mails from the clinton campaign and the dnc before they were

published by wikileaks. also in the days before, donald trump himself made comments seeming to court the country. >> russia, if you are listening, i hope you are able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. the people of crimea, from what i heard, would rather be with russia than where they were. >> reporter: manafort's deputy attended that meeting and all three men apparently left through separate doors. the prosecutor said there's an in-person meeting at an unusual time for somebody who is the campaign chairman to be spending time and to be doing it in person. inside the grand havana room, they talked about ukrainian policy and a peace plan that would have benefitted russia by lifting economic sanctions. manafo manafort's lawyers say he told the russian any peace plan idea was, quote, crazy. and they have repeat ledly argu he never intentionally lied to prosecutors.

just days before they met in manhattan, the russian sent manafort a note saying he had met with a man who had given manafort the biggest black caviar jar. the post saying they believed it was code for money. prosecutors also seem to be looking at whether the august 2016 meeting was when paul manafort shared campaign polling data, something manafort's attorneys inadvertently revealed in earlier court filings. this 2016 cigar bar encounter, it wasn't the only meeting according to prosecutors. they met several times throughout 2017, including when the russian was in washington, d.c. for donald trump's inauguration as well as into 2018. of course, all of those meetings, including the august 2016 meeting, those are probably of key importance for the prosecuto prosecutors. >> a very, very critical moment. i want to you stand by. i want it bring in evan perez.

you are working on new information on william barr, who s is expected to be confirmed as early as tomorrow. assuming barr is confirmed -- we expect he will be confirmed by the u.s. senate. he will be the decider on what happens with mueller's report once mueller's report is ready. by all indications, they are getting closer and closer. what are you learning about how barr is preparing? >> as the clues have been mounting up for weeks now, suggesting that mueller is winding down, the acting attorney general has said as much, we're learning for the first time tonight that barr has been having discussions with top officials within the justice department about how all of this will go. he is very much aware of the fact that the most pressing issue will be what exactly gets released to congress. we have heard senators press him on it. while we're told by officials that he doesn't know what's in the mueller report, he hasn't seen it, he hasn't been briefed on it, there's to final plans for that, he is very much aware that this is on his plate, it's going to be a big deal.

he wants to take time to get up to speed. he is ready to hit the ground running. >> a lot of concern from lawmakers the public won't actually see the mueller report. what is mueller required to submit? what's the law as far as releasing that information? >> the justice department regulations only say that the special counsel is supposed to submit a confidential report to the attorney general. it's up to him really as to how much of this becomes -- goes into the hands of members of congress and by extension the members of the public. i think bill barr knows very much that there's a public interest here to be served by releasing some of the information. one of the things that i think is emphasized in the discussions that he has been having with people at the justice department is simply, nobody wants a repeat of james comey. nobody wants a repeat where somebody says, we're not bringing charges but here are things they did wrong. we don't think he will go there. he is going to go somewhere perhaps short of that.

the question is, once he sees what mueller has produced, once they see what the investigation has produced, then he can make decisions as to what exactly he can tell the congress, what he can tell the public. we know there's a lot of pressure from members of congress. jerry nadler has hired a couple of lawyers who have experts -- >> chairman of the judiciary committee. >> hired lawyers specifically to look at this issue. we know that there's legislation, bipartisan in the senate trying to force the attorney general to release some of this. there's a lot of pressure from congress. once he gets in there, probably the first thing bill barr will get is a national security briefing. the second thing is a briefing on the mueller investigation. >> barr hasn't publicly committed to releasing this mueller report even to congress. >> no. that's exactly right. senators wanted that. he stopped short. he said, i want to do as transparent a report as possible, consistent with the regulations.

that was the backstop. the regulations actually don't say that he has to turn over all that much to congress at all. all he has to say is it is concluded. listen to what he said last month at his confirmation hearing on this. >> the rules, i think, say that the independent -- the special counsel will prepare a summary report on any prosecutorial decision. and that shall be confidential and shall be treated as any other pros co prosecutorial mat. the attorney general is responsible for notifying and reporting certain information upon the conclusion of the investigation. how these are going to fit together and what can be gotten out there, i have to wait -- i would have to wait.

i would want to talk to rod rosenstein and see what he has discussed with mueller and what -- >> you have testified you would like as much of the original report -- >> all i can say right now is, my goal and intent is to get as much information out as i can consistent with the regulation. >> of course, anything that he does short of providing the full report, congress is not going to stand for. the democrats are going to pounce on this. we can expect to see subpoenas start flying. of course, they're going to want to speak to bob mueller. >> he has to make a may vjor decision, barr, who will be his number two. r >> we expect rod rosenstein will leave in the next few weeks. he has been looking at a few candidates, some from inside the department, some from outside. the top contender right now is jeffrey rosen. he is a seasoned lawyer here in

washington. right now, he is the number two official at the department of transportation. he doesn't have any experience working at the justice department. which is going to ra ing ting ts for people. they are very good friends. i think talking to officials, they feel that that relationship, the fact that the two men know each other very well, is going to go a long way to sort of making that work for them at the justice department. >> barr once served as attorney general of the united states. he has experience. thank you very much. we are following more breaking news this hour. the sudden resignation of the head of fema, brock long. let's go to our white house correspondent kaitlan collins. another exit from the administration. it comes as the president has an important decision to make. >> reporter: that's right. brock long, the fema administrator, resigned today, less than two years into his tenure, that was not only marked by floods and hurricanes, but also by an investigation into his use of government vehicles

to get from washington to his home state of north carolina. and a clash with his boss kirstjen nielsen. long said this was one of the toughest choice ez hs he had to. his deputy will take over for him. the white house and president trump have not weighed in. that's likely because they have been facing questions of their own about whether or not president trump is going to sign off on this spending bill to avoid another government shutdown at the end of the week. president trump leaving washington guessing tonight. >> we will look at the legislation when it comes. i will make a determination then. >> reporter: declining to say whether he will sign the border security spending deal until he has seen the final package. >> we haven't gotten it yell. we will look for land mines. you could have that. >> reporter: trump all but

ruling a government shutdown out today. >> i don't want to see a shutdown. shutdown would be a terrible thing. i think a point was made with the last shutdown. people realized how bad the border is. >> reporter: the president hinting that if he does sign the deal, he could still use his executive powers to secure further funding for the wall. >> regardless of what i do, we have, as you know, a lot of money where we are building existing wall with the existing funds. i have a lot of options. just like we do with venezuela. >> reporter: adding he has options most people don't understand. >> it's going to happen at a rapid pace. we're giving out contracts right now. we will have a great wall. it's going to be a great, powerful wall. >> reporter: the crompromise includes 55 miles of fencing, below the $5.7 billion for 230 miles trump shut the government

over. >> i'm disappointed in the amount of money in the compromise. i assume the president will sign it. i don't think anybody is interested in having another government shutdown. >> reporter: questions remain about whether the president could be swayed by conservative backlash. >> nobody should be happy. the president has every right to be angry. the so-called compromise is typical of the d.c. swamp and its level of funding is pathetic. >> reporter: one hard-liner is framing it as a win for him. pointing to remarks made by house speaker nancy pelosi when she said she would give the president $1 for his wall. >> try $1.375 billion. she might not want to call it a wall. that's what it is. that's not all bad. >> reporter: no white house officials will go on the record to say the president is likely or is going to sign this bill,

because they say they are waiting for the final text to come here from capitol hill, something that's being hammered out over there. a lot of this has to do with they know the rough outline. the president has been briefed by senator richard shelby, the chairman of the appropriations committee and was one of those negotiating the deal. they don't want to get ahead of the president, because they know he is someone who changes his mind. they don't want to be contradicted. >> this bill is more than 1,000 pages we're told. kaitlan collins, thank you very much. joining us now, a democrat who serves on the intelligence and judiciary committees. thanks for joining us. >> good evening. >> let me get your thoughts on paul manafort, the former trump campaign chairman. what would motivate him to lie to the special counsel after making his plea agreement? >> wolf, i think paul manafort is protecting deep, deep secrets that if he told them would

probably put himself and his family and the president, his best chance at a pardon, at risk. when you look at the other defendants in this case from michael flynn to michael cohen to richard gates, so many of them, when confronted with evidence, have chosen to be cooperators. paul manafort is the outlier here. i think that's because he fears what happens to people. there's a lot of evidence of this. who turn over the goods that they have on russia and ukraine, which ends up being poisonings or family retribution. >> the special counsel's team says in early august 2016, a meeting in new york city is at the heart of their investigation. this was a meeting involving paul manafort, his deputy rick gates and the russian. >> the heart of the investigation has to be did the trump campaign work with the russians to elect donald trump?

to put this in perspective, we know in october through december 2015, there were discussions between michael cohen and russian american businessman sader about connecting the trumps with putin for a trump tower in moscow. that continued to the election. fast forward to june is when the trump tower meeting takes place. russians come to trump tower, offer dirt on hillary clinton. august is a hot month here for evidence in the case. you have the early august meeting with manafort. then, of course, manafort's former partner roger stone just about 19 days later sends out this bizarre tweet about podesta. we learned what that meant. i think clearly there was a partnership, an eagerness to work with the russians to receive the help they were offering. right now, the special counsel is trying to fill in the color there where manafort continues to refuse to cooperate.

>> you are making the case there was collusion between the trump campaign and the russians. >> wolf, we are way -- that was ten chapters ago. we have seen collusion. >> you heard the chairman yesterday of the senate intelligence committee saying there's no direct evidence of collusion. >> i would like to address that. with all due respect, i think they have one an admirable investigation. look at his words. he said no direct evidence of collusion. in the law, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are treated exactly the same. my question is, is there circumstantial evidence? i will give you an example. if i make brownies for my son nelson and i leave the room and i come back and those brownies are gone and nelson has chocolate on his face and chocolate on his hands and crumbs, i don't have direct evidence he ate the brownies. i have good circumstantial evidence he did. in this case, we have very good circumstantial evidence that the trump team, the family, the businesses were eager to work and were working with the russians while the russians were helping them. i think in the court of law,

that's enough. in the court of public opinion, that's enough. >> what happens if the mueller report comes out and, if there is a report, and there's -- mueller concludes, like senator burr, at least so far concluded no direct evidence of collusion between the trump campaign and the russians? what happens then? >> mueller's standard is higher than we have. his standard is what he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the highest standard in the land. however, there's also a challenge that he is up against which is we have seen people who have lied, obstructed, tamp eer with witnesses. the reason we have crimes for doing that is because you don't get rewarded for making the evidence go away. if you make the evidence go away so they couldn't prove the elements of the crime of conspiracy, we can still hold you accountable. the idea here is, if you are holding a shovel and you have dirt on your boots, we can assume that you are trying to

bury something important, even if we can't find it and there's a crime for that. people have pled guilty to that or are pending trial for that. >> you heard our new reporting on the expected new attorney general william barr. he is expected to be confirmed as early as tomorrow. how concerned are you he might refuse to release the full report when the investigation concludes and it's expected to conclude fairly soon? >> we need to see a full report. this is the largest investigation into any of the 44 people who have served as president of the united states. it's critical that we understand whether the president worked with the russians and whether he is compromised today. we will do all we can to make sure that report gets out. of course, i'm concerned when he uses kind of wiggle language in his confirmation that suggests he may not get it out. the american people can be assured that the congress is going to do all it can with this new majority to make sure that as soon as that report is concluded, that the american people see it.

>> you had a chance to question the acting attorney general matt whitaker last week when he appeared before your committee, the house judiciary committee. jerry nadler said he may have misled you and others in his testimony. what are the areas of concern? >> the areas, how did you get the job ? he seems to suggest he didn't say anything to the white house about his prior existing views, that the mueller investigation was a witch hunt. we now have witnesses that he gave us who can either corroborate his account he never brought that up when he auditions for the job or would contradict it. also, when it comes to recusal, again, it's very fishy he was advised to recuse himself yet he chose not to. we understand how that played out. we can probe further. finally, i asked him, would bob mueller agree with your account that this investigation is nearly complete? he actually was pretty straightforward when he said no, mr. mueller, wouldn't agree. the concern now is, is he

limiting the freedom of movement that the mueller team needs to have to follow the evidence? we can shine further light there. >> last time we spoke, congressman, you said you were getting, in your words, pretty close to making an announcement on whether you will run for president. have you made your final decision? the family on board? >> wolf, we're going to be in iowa this weekend and new hampshire next weekend. i want to get the government open and be a part of the team and the members of congress that are going to vote to do that, hopefully, by tomorrow. wolf, when i tackke a step back was the family on board, that's a great question. we spent four days at the icu. being in that experience i think showed me more than anything that health care is a top of mind issue for people. we're fortunate that we're on my wife's health insurance. i saw too many babies and talked to too many families who don't have insurance. it's going to wipe them out.

we need someone who will go big and be bold in the solutions to have a health care guarantee. i'm more fired up than ever to make this decision very soon. i promise you will be one of the first to know. >> is your daughter okay? >> thank you for asking. she's okay. of course, you get home and have a son who has a 103 fever. it never gets easy. this is what most families go through. we are living through the struggle. we have health insurance. >> is he okay? >> he is going to be okay. >> give us continuing update. we're concerned about their medical condition. >> thank you. >> intensive care unit not that much fun. >> she's home now. >> good luck. we appreciate it. as soon as you make your decision, we are here. we will give you an opportunity to explain to the american people what you decide. thank you very much. >> thanks. my pleasure. let's bring in our analysts to discuss this and more. we have jeffrey toobin, who is watching all of this very

caref carefully. that august -- early august 2016 meeting involving manafort, rick gates, this russian, what do you make of that? apparently, the mueller team thinks that's at the heart of this collusion investigation. >> if there was a movie, this would be the stage set. the grand havana room is on the top floor of the ed building th jared kushner's family owns. it's the haunt of rudy giuliani. everything happens at the grand havana room, this slightly seedy club with velvet drapes everywhere. now we have a russian spy apparently meeting in the back room with the campaign chairman at the precise time that manafort is at the peek of his power. what did they discuss? did they trade information about

the trump campaign? what did manafort get? was he working for the trump campaign trying to get information to help trump? was he just trying to make money for himself, because the russian was part of his meal ticket in the ukraine? it's really an extraordinary meeting in an extraordinary place. obviously, what went on in the meeting is something we can't know for sure, at least at this point. >> rick gates, manafort's deputy, who has pled guilty, he is cooperating with the mueller investigation, he was at that meeting and presumably he has told mueller and his team everything he knows about that meeting. he was there. he is an eyewitness. they were smoking cigars. >> i'm glad that jeffrey toobin explained to us why he knew where the cigar bar was. i haven't been there. rick gates, you have heard of mvp. he is mvw. most valuable witness.

he was in these meetings. as we look for an explanation, as laura knows better than i, about why mueller's team thinks that manafort is lying to them, rick gates was in those meetings. who told them when he came that they left by different doors? he is critical. another example is, he is clearly cooperating because they keep putting off his sentencing date. it's now march 15th. >> if he knew, manafort, his deputy rick gates was fully cooperating with mueller, why would he go ahead and lie as mueller's now alleging? >> it's a good question. it doesn't seem like a smart strategy. what mueller's team has speculated in a recent court hearing that was unsealed last week is that manafort was hoping to get a pardon from the president and show his loyalty by trying to cover up whatever happened in this meeting.

we're not certain that that's the motivation here. it seems like a reasonable guess, especially when the president has very clearly on twitter expressed anger at people who he calls rats and support for people who he deems loyal. >> i have a theory, too. >> go ahead. >> he is just a liar. liars lie. one of the things about being involved in the criminal justice system is that a lot of people lie. the great columnist used to call courthouses places people go to lie. it's just a part of some people's constitution. there is a theory he is trying to -- that's a plausible theory, he was trying to get a pardon. he may just be someone who lies. >> go ahead. >> we have seen so many people connected to this russia investigation lie to the fbi and the special counsel investigators. i think one of the biggest questions coming out of this for mueller is, do you know why they

lied? did they lie because they didn't think they were going to get caught? did they lie because they were covering something else up? we don't know that he will provide on that, if anything. it raises the question. michael flynn, george papadopoulos, manafort, everyone we have seen for most part hasn't been charged with conspiracy against the united states. they have been charged with lying to fbi officials or the spe special counsel's office. >> they have to cop a plea. they have to cooperate, because they want to reduce their is senten sentence. >> that's what my kids did. this is as laura said, everybody is now in a position going for what the best thing they can do is. for rick gates, it's cooperating. for paul manafort, i think he is hoping for a pardon. again, the context. why did they all lie over and

over again? >> update our viewers, you have been doing reporting with evan perez on the new attorney general. he is probably going to be confirmed as early as tomorrow, william barr. he will have to make a major decision shortly after this mueller report is concluded, after mueller briefs the new attorney general on what he has, what he doesn't have. he has to decide what to make public what to tell congress, what to tell the american people. >> that's right. it's probably one of the most immediate and pressing decisions barr will face if he is confirmed later this week. i think the challenge for him is this. the justice department does not typically talk about people who are not charged. they don't liketoput our derogatory information. comey did. barr screw eered him for it. comb joy d barr made it clear, that's not me. that's not what i'm going do. i the problem is this isn't any ordinary investigation.

congress is beating down the door for every detail. it may be the situation where barr will face a subpoena for this. he is in consultation with justice department officials that were told about what he should do on this, how he should handle it. he hasn't made any final decisions. i want to caution about that. he hasn't been picking what will be in and what won't. he doesn't know what the 2350i7 findings will hold. >> jeffrey, you are a former federal prosecutor. how much discretion does the new attorney general william barr have? >> a lot. a lot. he is going to have -- this is a -- when you talk about the involvement of the president, if any. he is not an ordinary perspective department, because justice department policy, which certainly will be followed here, is that he can't be indicted while he is president.

he is not really a potential defendant in any realistic sense. also, there is implicit in the regulation and the underlying authority is that there's a public interest here. the fact that congress has a potential interest in impeachment or not impeachment, that is something to be considered as well. the idea that this could be kept secret in any significant way is just beyond the pale. classified information, obviously, that is not going to be released. anything beyond that i think you will see a storm of outrage. i have seen lots of storms of outrage. things don't change. >> there's a history -- a good relationship that barr has with mueller. right? >> yes. one of the most memorable moments of barr's testimony was he talked about the barrs and

mulers, th the bob mueller family. he will have to decide the political and legal cross currents. it's going to be tough. i thought the most interesting thing you heard during the confirmation hearings was it wasn't just democrats who wanted this information. you had chuck grassley, the former chairman of the judiciary committee saying we spent this for taxpayer money, we need to see what's out there. there's going to be a lot of pressure on both sides to get it out. he may just resist it. >> quickly, as laura said, he does not know what's there yet. i spoke to an old friend and colleague of his who said in general, this is a man who is going to do what he thinks is best for the country. i think we should remember that. >> about to become the attorney general of the united states. stand by. we are getting breaking news

right now. the house judiciary committee chairman, jerry nadler, sending a new letter to the acting attorney general matt whitaker after his testimony before the panel the other day. let's go to manu raju. tell our viewers what you are learning. >> reporter: the chairman sending this letter to the acting attorney general raising serious questions about that testimony from last friday saying that it was unsatisfactory, saying this. although the committee appreciates your decision to appear, members on both sides found many of your answers to be up satisfactory, incomplete or contradicted by other evidence. you refused to offer clear responses regarding your communications with the white house and you were inconsistent with your application of the department's policy related to the discuss of ongoing investigations. nad nadler cites a couple issues, the president's interactions with whitaker and what he seaid about how he discussed the cohen

guilty plea with the president. he was asked about reporting about the president lashing out at matt whitaker. he denied that. he was asked in the same testimony about any discussions he had with the president. he side ststepped that. they asked for clarity about when he was a private citizen when he was interviewing for apparently a white house attorney job, dealing with the special counsel's investigation, at that point he said in his testimony he did not have any discussions with the white house about his criticisms of the mueller investigation. according to nadler, he says incredulously, you suggested you didn't discuss your opinions. he said if they don't get clarity, they will bring him it a deposition behind closed doors. i did actually ask jerry nadler earlier about whether he believes matt whitaker misled his committee. was he truthful to your committee during his testimony?

>> we're reviewing the testimony. i'm not sure he was truthful in everything he said. i don't want to say until we finish reviewing it. >> reporter: the question is where does this go from here? at that same hearing, whitaker did not discuss his conversations with the president. said they were essentially off limits, threatened to invoke executive privilege. he is not going to be acting attorney general for longer. tomorrow bill barr will be confirmed by the senate to essentially take over overseeing mueller investigation. democrats say they're not done questioning him. will he be a private citizen, will they ask him to come before the committee then? will he not discuss the conversations with the president, all still yet to play out. democrats want to make it clear that if they have questions, they will get answers. they will pursue them even if they have to do so with subpoenas. >> clearly, they were not happy with his testimony the other day. manu, thanks for that breaking news. jeffrey toobin, let me get your reaction. as you remember, he was sworn

in, whitaker, during that hearing. if you lie to congress, that's a crime. >> yeah. the idea that he was appointed for any other reason than to protect donald trump from the justice department and from the mueller investigation is pretty ludicrous. do you think he was picked because he is the best lawyer in the united states? did he give any indication that he is even a good lawyer, much less the kind of person who is the attorney general, when bill barr certainly is? the explanation of how he became the acting attorney general was -- did strain credibility. you can see why the democrats are unhappy. >> he became the acting attorney general as you remember, because he was the chief of staff to the then attorney general jeff sessions. as chief of staff, he didn't have to go through confirmation. >> right. he managed to endear himself to the white house for months before.

he had conversations with the president about the investigations, including the clinton family foundation and the like. they had a relationship. i want to point out a part of this letter that i think might not get underscored unless we do. the committee is saying it has identified several individuals with direct knowledge of phone calls that you denied receiving from the white house. pamela and i had reported that the president was unhappy with the southern district of new york and how they had been investigating michael cohen, how they named him as individual one in the court papers when they were talking about the hush money payments that cohen made on behalf of the president to certain women connected with the campaign. the committee is now saying, we know that those phone calls happ happened. they will have their put up or shut up moment and see what they can put forward. they are saying they have something in contradict. >> nadler says members on both

sides of the aisle found many of your answers to be unsatisfactory, incomplete and contradicted by other evidence. >> let's look at donald trump for a moment. who was donald trump going to make attorney general? even though he said he didn't know who whitaker was. that was not believable. this was the most important job and he put him in there. common sense because he thought that he would get some information out of him. the other thing that we have talked about that's i think worth repeating is that donald trump talks about the mueller investigation with everybody. the notion that he would -- the one person he didn't bring it up with is matt whitaker seems unlikely. >> what do you think, because the fallout from this potentially could be very significant now that the democrats are in the majority of the house of representatives? they can prolong this for a long as they want. >> absolutely.

this is a show of force by the democrats. showing what they will do now that they have the majority. demonstrating to future witnesses that they are not to be messed with, that they won't be taken advantage of. they won't just sit by while you spew misinformation in the committee hearing. this is a show of force by democrats. i think it's important not just in the context of matt whitaker but witnesses to appear before the committees. >> let's remember why is michael cohen going to prison? for lying to congress. this is something that robert mueller has line in the sand, whatever you want to call it, said this will not stand. if matt whitaker has lied to congress, there is a bigger issue here. >> we are getting -- i got a copy of this united states district court ruling by the judge in this particular case.

i have been going through it. you have been going through it. jeffrey toobin, i want your assessment. she concludes that paul manafort, the former trump campaign chairman, did in fact lie, even though he promised he would not lie as part of a plea agreement, part of his cooperation agreement with mueller and his special counsel team. she says he did lie on several of the points, jeffrey. >> well, it's doom for paul manafort. yes, it's better for him that it was only three out of five. remember, amy jackson also revoked manafort's bail because of his behavior while he was out on bail. this is a judge who has had it with paul manafort. yes, it could have been worse. going into sentencing as a 70-year-old man with this kind of finding is just disastrous.

>> office of special counsel according to judge jackson -- reading it together with you -- has established evidence that defendant intentionally made false statements to the fbi, the office of special counsel and the grand jury concerning the payment by firm a to a law firm, another one the office of the special counsel has established by a preponderance of evidence that defendant intisentionally made false statements regarding material in the investigation, including his interactions and communications with the russian. we have been hearing about him. also there's a third point, the office of special counsel established that on october 5, 2018, the defendant intentionally made false statements that were material to another department of justice investigation. they don't explain that in detail. clearly, paul manafort is in deep trouble. >> it looks like as jeffrey

said, a mixed report. not a good one given the different ways she found that essentially mueller prevailed on at least three of them. she also goes on to say that this means the office of special counsel is to longer bound by its obligations under the plea agreement, including the promise to support a reduction of the offense. that doesn't mean she won't take into account her own judgement when making the ultimate decision on sentencing. that's up to her. it's not up to mueller. she says this doesn't address whether the defendant will receive credit for his acceptance of responsibility. he may receive some reduction. overall, she has found that he did lie on those issues that he list out. >> the three of the five issues. the judge jackson on the two -- two out of the five she says the office of special counsel failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that on october 16, 2018, defendant intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with theed aminute strag. evan, you have been going

through this. she has concluded that on three of the five charges, manafort lied. >> reporter: that's right. paul manafort's legal team made the calculation they were going to oppose this. they said he didn't intentionally lie. once he was prompted with documents and some previous statements, he corrected the statements during time he was supposed to be cooperating with the special counsel. they decided that this was going to end up with no additional time for paul manafort. in the end, he was probably going to get ten years. so they had made the calculation that they were going to fight it. they were not going to admit that he had made these intentional false statements. it would not make much of a difference on the end of his sentence. we will see what the judge does.

we don't know. she has take n a harsh view of what paul manafort has done. it's key here, the special counsel says the russian is an agent of the russian intelligence services. paul manafort's team suggested maybe it's more complicated. he has had meetings with the u.s. embassy in kiev and ukraine, suggesting that perhaps he might have been a double agent. i don't know how that helps him. you can see that they made certain calculations and that failed with amy burrman jackson, the judge ruled against him on three of the five false statements the special counsel said he made. >> jeffrey, let's remember, he is almost 70 years old, paul manafort. he has been in jail all these months awaiting sentencing. if he will get ten years now as a result of lying and all the other charges, all the other

convictions he has had, this guy will be spending a lot of time in jail. >> and i saw him in court the other day. he is shockingly -- he has shockingly declined. he walked with a cane. he appears disoriented. he is in terrible shape. remember also, this is just one case where he is being sentenced. he also has to be sentenced in the eastern district of virginia where he was convicted at trial. this isn't even all of what he faces. it is just a disastrous situation for manafort. it's -- no one needs a pardon more than paul manafort. >> not just you but others who have seen him in court and elsewhere say they wouldn't recognize him. we know what he looked like, very dapper during the campaign. always wearing a suit and tie. now he looks totally different. he has been in solitary

confinement in this jail in virginia. >> i think it's generally described as protective custody. it's not like he was in a punishment situation of solitary. one of the things i think people done realize is how bad jail is, even in the best of circumstances. jail ages people. he is not in some sort of country club where he can go out and get fresh air. he is in -- he is being held close to the city. it is a miserable situation for anyone, particularly someone who is 70 years old, in uncertain health, in an emotional disaster situation. it's really bad. you can see it on his face. >> they say he has been suffering from all sorts of illnesses, including gout and as jeffrey said, he could barely walk. he needs a cane. >> i think one of the things that was interesting in the

decision is the last graph where she said -- the judge said that these were the cases but she was still to decide how it would play into his time served. as jeffrey said, this is just one case. this is going to go on and on. back to our question of a pardon. he has held firm. the president has maybe hinted, put out there that pardons for people who hold firm are more likely. i think they have to be hoping that that might happen. >> just to put this -- >> that's an understatement. >> with paul manafort, the meeting he had early august 2016 at 666 5th avenue at the havana club -- >> that only jeffrey knows about. >> the mueller team suggests that's at the heart of the

allegations of collusion between the trump campaign and the rush sh -- russians. >> we understand the role and connections. we still haven't seen that link as to why it's at the heart of it other than the fact that conspiracy and russian interference in the election is at the heart of mueller's work. he needs to flush that out. this is why it's so important that the public and congress gets thur haget gets their hands on mueller's report. >> there seems to be this divide not only in the house between democrats and republicans on the intelligence committee but now in the senate as well. >> that's right. the question that is really interesting to me is when do republicans -- republican voters who have supported the president, who have believed his argument that the mueller investigation is a witch hunt,

at what point does all of this pile up, all of the people who have been lying or pled guilty, at what point does that turn the tide in public opinion and particularly with supporters of the president? that is the moment when this becomes very politically perilous for donald trump and republicans. >> i want to bring back evan. he is getting more information. you have been going through the document as we have tried to do here on the set as well. what else are you learning? >> i think one of the important things is to bring back to the attention on the russian. he is a key character here. we haven't heard the last of hil him. one of the things that's emerged in the court hear, the one -- the sealed court hearing that happened just about a week and a half ago, what emerged was the prosecutors believe that essentially he is the key to whatever might have been happening behind closed doors, that might amount to what people call collusion. there was some kind of

conspiracy. he is the one that's receiving -- if you remember, paul manafort is handing over polling data that according to paul manafort's team is not that important. according to prosecutors, they are saying it's very detailed. it's very important. happening behind the scenes. now, the special counsel, the fbi, they have a lot of information from intelligence intercepts to know what the russians were doing behind the scenes. we don't know that yet, so again, i think he's an important character in this investigation and i think we're yet to see more about what that is. we may not see it in an indictment necessarily but perhaps mueller is going to produce this in trying to explain in his report what exactly might have been behind the scenes, whatever was happening behind the scenes with the russians and with paul manafort. again, it goes to this heart of the investigation of whether or not there was a conspiracy or what people call collusion during the 2016 election.

>> all right. everybody stick around because there's more breaking news we're following right now, very important information just coming in. a former u.s. air force intelligence specialist is charged with turning against her country and becoming a spy for iran. monica wit is accused of helping iran identify american counter intelligence officers. barbara starr is reporting from the middle east. she's joining us live from oman. tell us more about these spy charges. >> reporter: well, wolf, espionage is always the ultimate betrayal but this time, especially painful because it's espionage on behalf of iran. tonight a former u.s. air force intelligence specialist who disappeared and was believed to be in iran is now wanted by the fbi for spying on behalf of the islamic republic. 39-year-old monica witt who had access to top secret information including names of u.s.

intelligence officers defected to iran in 2013 and was once thought to be missing. but instead the justice department says she was recruited by iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps. >> monica witt provided the iranian government with the identities of authorities operating covertly. >> reporter: the justice department worked to target eight computer departments to deploy malware that would provide access to computers and networks used by the u.s. intelligence community. the u.s. also alleges witt created target packages for iran to identify and track down u.s. government agents. this week, iran marks 40 years since the islamic revolution brought the current regime to power. and the rhetoric from the trump administration is getting hotter. >> i don't think you'll have many more anniversaries to

enjoy. >> reporter: the hawkish language from national security adviser john bolton is at odds with the pentagon, according to a senior military official. the official said the military is seeking to avoid open conflict with iran and rely instead on economic and diplomatic pressure. but in an exclusive television interview, the top navy commander for the region says the threat is real. >> they have a growing capability in cruise missiles, in ballistic missiles, they have a growing capability in unmanned surface systems. >> reporter: cnn went aboard the uss gladiator, one of the navy's mine counter measures ships in the persian gulf where the crew faces the threat iran poses to the u.s. and shipping in this critical area. >> we are prepared for everything that they actually have and everything that their rhetoric says that they have.

>> reporter: for the commanding officer of uss gladiator, the mission is making sure that if iran lays mines in the vital strait of armus waterway, the ship will be able to find and destroy them. >> we take it as a threat that is something that could happen and we need to be ready for and prepared for. >> reporter: u.s. military officials say that some of the new russian missiles and weapon systems going into iran are so strong with long ranges, very powerful that it means the u.s. military may have to change the way it conducts operations in the vital persian gulf waterways sometime in the next five years. wolf. >> lots of important stuff. barbara starr reporting exclusively for us from the persian gulf. thank you so much. other news we're following, as congressional aides are drafting the final pieces of a bill it avert a government shut down, one of the lead negotiators is making history, we're talking about democrat

nita lowry, chair of the house appropriations committee and the ranking republican on the panel is a woman as well. our chief political correspondent dana bash is joining us right now. these women are breaking down barriers and engaging some badly needed bipartisanship. >> it's already happening. you're already seeing the results of that. there were four lawmakers in the room on monday night cutting the deal that led, they hope, to what's going to happen later this week, which is averting a shut down, two of them are women who are in those new roles, leading the powerful house appropriations committee, they're determined to figure out sticky problems and do it across party lines and i sat down with the history making duo for a colorful conversation. >> what an honor it is to serve as the chairwoman of this committee. >> a moment for the history

books. democrat nita lowey and with kate granger, the top republican, this is the first female duo to lead any house panel since 1977 and that was a committee on the house beauty shop. >> too bad it was disbanded. i could use a house beauty shop. i never knew there was a house beauty shop. >> i didn't either. >> you're in charge of the committee that performs the most important task constitutionally of congress, the power of the purse. >> translation, they write bills to fund the government, and were key players in cutting a border security deal to avert another government shut down. the duo joked it could have been quicker if they were left alone to hash it out. >> we do it. give us an hour, 30 minutes. >> they have worked together for years, across party lines. >> nita said we're going to be friends, we're going to show how well two women can get this

done. we're going to disagree but not be disagreeable. >> don't let their congeniality fool you. >> there will be times when someone would come to the podium and misunderstand that beautiful smile and that nice way she handles is. i would watch, i would say he's in for such a surprise because she's a very tough lady. >> a male colleague even gave lowey an ice pick as a gag gift. >> he said watch out for that smile, she has a silver pick in her hand. >> granger, the first female mayor of fort worth, texas, is no different. >> you probably have steel toed cowboy boots. >> one member of leadership said if there's going to be a knife fight, make sure kay is on your team. >> lowey, 81, and granger, 76 marvel at the influx of young women in congress. >> do you feel a sense of responsibility to mentor the younger women? >> absolutely. absolutely. i interact with the young women, the middle aged women, and reach

out and try and be as helpful as i can. >> you're one of 13 republican women, that's all in the house. and that's total of 102 women, which is pretty remarkable, only 13 are republicans. >> it's very disappointing. we have a lot of work to do. >> a big part of their job, traveling to see firsthand how taxpayer dollars they apropuate are spent, like granger's recent trip to the southern border. >> talking in a room in washington is one thing, when they see it for themselves, it's a game changer. >> man, man, man. >> back in washington, walking through the capitol's statue hall, it's hard not to notice most of the statues are men. >> these men probably never imagined that women would be in charge. and you are. >> yeah. >> a female oasis of bipartisanship on a crucial house committee.

>> this is what i gave her when she became chair and when i became, when i was elected by the steering committee, she's the first one that called and congratulated me. we have that sort of relationship. >> do you actually use that at the hearings, or it's ceremonial. >> i use it for lots of things. >> and lowey and granger each has three children, 13 grandchildren between them. i asked if they bond as grandmothers, they both paused, looked at one another and looked back at me surprised to realize their answer is no. well, if they said they don't, they're doting grandmothers, of course, but they realize they just don't have time to do that, and lowey looked at granger and isn't that something, we don't talk about our grandchildren. >> it's a whole new world in the house of representatives. 100 women out of 435, that's so significant. >> it is so significant, and when each of these women came, when lowey, there were somewhere in the 20s, same goes for kate granger, so they have seen the change and they do feel a

responsibility to continue to be part of that change. >> i covered congress for a long time. i never knew there was a beauty shop there. >> neither did they. very interesting, good work done, appreciate it. >> thanks, wolf. >> i'm wolf blitzer in the situation room. follow me on twitter and instagram, tweet the show at cnn, erin burnett "out front" starts right now. breaking news a judge just ruling that paul manafort intentionally lied to the fbi, robert mueller and the grand jury, including lying about his interactions with a russian linked operative. what does this mean for manafort? >> plus, president trump looking for a land mine in the latest border deal, his word and some republicans seem eager to give him an out, turn it down, shut it down. another shut down? plus roger stone speaking out more than ever, now selling stones and shirts. gag order? let's go out front. good evening, i'm erin burnett. out front, the breaking news